Lot, One of the Bible's bad Guys

[InChrist]

It's convenient enough to claim god did this, that, and the other thing because it answers a question, but where's your evidence? Where's the evidence that god inspired Peter to note the information? Peter certainly doesn't claim god inspired his writing. And after all, this is a god who had to actually go down to Sodom and Gomorrah to see if the reports about the two towns were true (Gen. 18:20-21). Nope, concocting explanations out of thin air doesn't cut it.

Of course Peter's words were inspired, he was an apostle of Jesus Christ, a leader in the church, and his epistles were included in the canon of biblical scriptures.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,a which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1;19-21

I don't think God had to go down to see what was occurring in Sodom and Gomorrah. If you actually believe that then you may have a problem with reading and understanding the context of scripture.as a whole, which clearly portrays a God who is omniscient and in the OT a God who often personally interacted with certain individuals. That is the reason I believe He came down.as the passage shows His direct interaction with Abraham concerning Sodom.

 

[Deeje]

Perhaps you should take a look at my 36,413 posts instead of relying on faulty memory?

When looking through a few of your more recent posts Mestemia, I haven't changed my mind. You are obviously just a sniper. You have nothing but criticism for anyone who posts something with which you disagree, yet there is nothing to back up what you say.....it must be tiring to constantly see things in such a negative way.

If all of your 36,421 posts are like that, its not really much of a positive contribution, is it?
I wonder what would make you post something positive? The "Revolting" one seems to get a lot of your attention for some reason.

Yes, the piercing of the ear was to differentiate between indentured servants and the slaves you claim did not exist in the Bible....
I understand that since your god did not condemn slavery that you have to butter it up to make it seem less immoral than it is.

What slavery are you speaking about? The Bible speaks freely of slavery. Something that in this day and age is considered unacceptable....but it was something that was quite acceptable and even beneficial in the times when the Bible was written.

The kind of slavery seen in Southern American states in the past was not the kind of slavery undertaken in Israel. You have to understand "slavery" in Biblical terms, in the culture and the times.

The thought of "owning" another person is repugnant in today's thinking, but in Bible times it was a way to pay off a debt. Instead of going to jail, a thief was "sold" so as to be able to pay off the value of what he had stolen. Instead of the victim being out of pocket, the perpetrator was put to work to compensate the victim, sometimes well over what he stole. There was no supporting a prison system where the victim paid for the upkeep of the prisoner in taxes, as well as losing what was stolen.

Someone who found themselves in debt but unable to pay were also sold into service until the debt was paid off. It was a good system. The slave's owner provided food and lodging and he was to be treated as a hired worker.

There were strict laws governing the treatment of slaves, remembering the times and the culture. We cannot put today's standards on yesterdays norms. What was acceptable back then is not acceptable today. Culture dictates what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Some people in African or Asian countries, even today, sell their children or put them to work to support their family. The spoiled brats in the Western world would never come at that.

Your comment is not based on fact but on your uninformed opinion. You are entitled to it of course, but your views are not fact just because you say so. If you don't substantiate what you say, then they are just empty words...devoid of any substance. What is your opinion worth? More than anyone else's?

 

[Skwim]

Of course Peter's words were inspired, he was an apostle of Jesus Christ, a leader in the church, and his epistles were included in the canon of biblical scriptures.

Of course Peter was inspired to write what he did. This is no doubt true about every author who wrote about the religion at that time; whether included in the bible or not. So what I mean by "god inspired Peter to note the information" was that god, in effect, "made" Peter write what he did, which in turn would lend authenticity to the fact that Lot was righteous. However, we don't have indications of either here, so for the reasons I've given before, we're left an embellished story. Peter, with no evidence, decided to characterize Lot as righteous on his own.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,a which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1;19-21

Sorry, but the reference to prophets is not to Peter. Plus, what Peter relates about Lot is not a prophecy. Your quoted passage is irrelevant.

I don't think God had to go down to see what was occurring in Sodom and Gomorrah. If you actually believe that then you may have a problem with reading and understanding the context of scripture.as a whole, which clearly portrays a God who is omniscient and in the OT a God who often personally interacted with certain individuals. That is the reason I believe He came down.as the passage shows His direct interaction with Abraham concerning Sodom.

Nope. God didn't go down to interact with anyone, He went down to "see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know.” The implication here is that in order to know if they were as bad as he had heard he couldn't do it from upstairs but had to go down to see what was occurring. Does this make sense to you, that here we have an omnipotent god couldn't verify the outcry he was hearing from where he sat? Of course it doesn't, but this is just what he was obliged to do. Go figure.

 

[McBell]

When looking through a few of your more recent posts Mestemia, I haven't changed my mind. You are obviously just a sniper. You have nothing but criticism for anyone who posts something with which you disagree, yet there is nothing to back up what you say.....it must be tiring to constantly see things in such a negative way.

If all of your 36,421 posts are like that, its not really much of a positive contribution, is it?
I wonder what would make you post something positive? The "Revolting" one seems to get a lot of your attention for some reason.



What slavery are you speaking about? The Bible speaks freely of slavery. Something that in this day and age is considered unacceptable....but it was something that was quite acceptable and even beneficial in the times when the Bible was written.

The kind of slavery seen in Southern American states in the past was not the kind of slavery undertaken in Israel. You have to understand "slavery" in Biblical terms, in the culture and the times.

The thought of "owning" another person is repugnant in today's thinking, but in Bible times it was a way to pay off a debt. Instead of going to jail, a thief was "sold" so as to be able to pay off the value of what he had stolen. Instead of the victim being out of pocket, the perpetrator was put to work to compensate the victim, sometimes well over what he stole. There was no supporting a prison system where the victim paid for the upkeep of the prisoner in taxes, as well as losing what was stolen.

Someone who found themselves in debt but unable to pay were also sold into service until the debt was paid off. It was a good system. The slave's owner provided food and lodging and he was to be treated as a hired worker.

There were strict laws governing the treatment of slaves, remembering the times and the culture. We cannot put today's standards on yesterdays norms. What was acceptable back then is not acceptable today. Culture dictates what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Some people in African or Asian countries, even today, sell their children or put them to work to support their family. The spoiled brats in the Western world would never come at that.

Your comment is not based on fact but on your uninformed opinion. You are entitled to it of course, but your views are not fact just because you say so. If you don't substantiate what you say, then they are just empty words...devoid of any substance. What is your opinion worth? More than anyone else's?

Who are you trying to convince?
Me or yourself?

 

[InChrist]

Of course Peter was inspired to write what he did. This is no doubt true about every author who wrote about the religion at that time; whether included in the bible or not. So what I mean by "god inspired Peter to note the information" was that god, in effect, "made" Peter write what he did, which in turn would lend authenticity to the fact that Lot was righteous. However, we have indications of neither here, so for the reasons I've given before, we're left an embellished story. Peter, with no evidence, decided to characterize Lot as righteous on his own.

Sorry, but the reference to prophets is not to Peter. Plus, what Peter relates about Lot is not a prophecy. Your quoted passage is irrelevant.

Since Peter was an apostle of Jesus Christ, moved by the Holy Spirit to speak for God and teach in the church he was a prophet whose words concerning Lot were therefore inspired by God. Prophet and prophecy have broader definitions than simply foretelling future events.

"Prophets were the immediate organs of God for the communication of his mind and will to men ( Deuteronomy 18:18 Deuteronomy 18:19 ). The whole Word of God may in this general sense be spoken of as prophetic, inasmuch as it was written by men who received the revelation they communicated from God, no matter what its nature might be. The foretelling of future events was not a necessary but only an incidental part of the prophetic office. The great task assigned to the prophets whom God raised up among the people was "to correct moral and religious abuses, to proclaim the great moral and religious truths which are connected with the character of God, and which lie at the foundation of his government."
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/prophet/

Nope. God didn't go down to interact with anyone, He went down to "see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know.” The implication here is that in order to know if they were as bad as he had heard he couldn't do it from upstairs but had to go down to see what was occurring. Does this make sense to you, that here we have an omnipotent god couldn't verify the outcry he was hearing from where he sat? Of course it doesn't, but this is just what he was obliged to do. Go figure.

'So how do we deal with passages like this? The answer is that we must always interpret any passage in light of all the other texts in the Bible. They must all integrate together and they cannot contradict each other.


Reading the rest of the Bible, we discover a multitude of verses that speak of God’s unlimited knowledge. Consider Job 37:16 , which says, “Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge?” In Ps. 139 , David speaks of God’s knowing everything about him, even his words before he speaks them. In Psalm 147, the writer proclaims that God’s “understanding has not limit.”


God announces things to men before they ever occur (Is. 42:9 ). Jesus teaches that God knows every person’s needs before they ever ask (Matt. 6:8 ). Every hair on your head is numbered (Matt. 10:30 ). Paul proclaims the “depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Rom. 11:33 ). The writer of Hebrews reminds us that “nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight” (Heb. 4:13 ).


There is a strong theme of God’s unlimited knowledge running throughout the Bible. So, if we understand the Genesis 18 passage to be teaching that God does not know what is happening in Sodom, we run head-long into contradiction. How can the God who knows every hair on every person’s head not know what’s going on in Sodom?


The answer is fairly simple. Students of the Bible have traditionally understood passages like Genesis 18 to be anthropomorphic in nature. This means that the passage is written from a human perspective, rather than a divine perspective. God already knows how many wicked people are in Sodom, but he wants to teach Abraham something about the wickedness of the people. God must speak to human beings in terms they can understand, so he sometimes asks questions and expresses uncertainty to elicit appropriate human responses.


Recognizing anthropomorphisms in the Bible is extremely important. The person who claims that passages like Genesis 18 must be taken literally is knocking an infinite God down to a finite creature. In addition, once you deny the presence of anthropomorphic language in the Bible, you must admit that God has wings, arms, and eyes; that he repents and forgets things. The list could go on. The Bible, like any other literature, employs figurative and metaphorical language. Failure to recognize this leads a reader into all kinds of serious problems."

- See more at: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2009/05/05/are-there-things-god-does-not-know/

 

[Skwim]

'So how do we deal with passages like this? The answer is that we must always interpret any passage in light of all the other texts in the Bible. They must all integrate together and they cannot contradict each other.

And this is one of the main strengths of Christianity, right along with cherry picking. It allows the Christian to concoct whatever kind of answer he needs, be it silly, illogical, or just plain dumb. It's also one of the reasons many people have little time for the religion.

Have a good day.

 

[InChrist]

And this is one of the main strengths of Christianity, right along with cherry picking. It allows the Christian to concoct whatever kind of answer he needs, be it silly, illogical, or just plain dumb. It's also one of the reasons many people have little time for the religion.

Have a good day.

Actually, if you understand the concept of integrating each passage in the light of all other texts in the Bible the outcome is quite the opposite of cherry-picking and prevents one from coming up with ideas that are contrary to the entirety of the scriptures.

I hope you have a good night.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Say, is this from the OT or NT? Is there an original text for it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You want to judge him when God didn't. You want to paint him as unrighteous, when the apostle Peter called him righteous.

There is nothing righteous about a man who volunteers his daughters to be gang raped.

The Southern American slave owners should have known better since most claimed to be Christians. There is no justification for the kind of slavery they practiced. It was anything but Christian.

The Bible supports slavery, affirms slavery, and even assures it's ok to beat your slaves as hard as you want as long as you don't kill them and they recover after a day or two because they are your property.

 

[roger1440]

Ultimately the story is really about the extreme importance of hospitality to guests, which was a big theme in many of the cultures of that time. Lot would rather offer up his daughters to the mob rather than let his guests be harmed. It's extreme in its presentation, but its message makes perfect sense in the context of the culture it hails from.

"Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it." (Hebrews 13:2)

 

[LuisDantas]

Say, is this from the OT or NT? Is there an original text for it?

Lot's story is from the OT. As a matter of fact, from the first book of the Bible, Genesis.

If I am not mistaken there are some early references to him as the nephew of Abram (a,k.a. Abraham, a.k.a. Ibrahim) as soon as of Genesis 11, but most of the story discussed in this thread is from Genesis 19.

The Qur'an, I am told, does not acknowledge the part about his daughters' incest as valid teaching.

Lot is mentioned in the Quran as well, most notably in Surah 15 (Al-Hijr, "Rock City") but also 11 (Hud), 29 (Al-Ankabut, "The Spider"), 51 (Adh-Dhariyat, "The Winnowing Winds"), 66 (At-Tahrim, "Banning, Prohibition"), 7, 26, and 54.

Quran 66:10 presents Lot's wife as a lousy kafir like yours truly, perhaps one of the first examples.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Lot's story is from the OT. As a matter of fact, from the first book of the Bible, Genesis.

If I am not mistaken there are some early references to him as the nephew of Abram (a,k.a. Abraham, a.k.a. Ibrahim) as soon as of Genesis 11, but most of the story discussed in this thread is from Genesis 19.

The Qur'an, I am told, does not acknowledge the part about his daughters' incest as valid teaching.

Lot is mentioned in the Quran as well, most notably in Surah 15 (Al-Hijr, "Rock City") but also 11 (Hud), 29 (Al-Ankabut, "The Spider"), 51 (Adh-Dhariyat, "The Winnowing Winds"), 66 (At-Tahrim, "Banning, Prohibition"), 7, 26, and 54.

Quran 66:10 presents Lot's wife as a lousy kafir like yours truly, perhaps one of the first examples.

Yes, Lot's story is indeed mentioned in the Quran.

I still want to know what the original text exactly says. Translations could be interpretations not actual translations, specially if they went thru more than one translation, let alone the language specific differences.

 

[Deeje]

There is nothing righteous about a man who volunteers his daughters to be gang raped.

Good grief, you're like a broken record. Can't read..... There was no gang rape.
They lived in Sodom probably all their lives and they were still virgins....No gang rape...no rape at all...OK?

The Bible supports slavery, affirms slavery, and even assures it's ok to beat your slaves as hard as you want as long as you don't kill them and they recover after a day or two because they are your property.

In case you missed it.....

The Bible speaks freely of slavery. Something that in this day and age is considered unacceptable....but it was something that was quite acceptable and even beneficial in the times when the Bible was written.

The kind of slavery seen in Southern American states in the past was not the kind of slavery undertaken in Israel. You have to understand "slavery" in Biblical terms, in the culture and the times.

The thought of "owning" another person is repugnant in today's thinking, but in Bible times it was a way to pay off a debt. Instead of going to jail, a thief was "sold" so as to be able to pay off the value of what he had stolen. Instead of the victim being out of pocket, the perpetrator was put to work to compensate the victim, sometimes well over what he stole. There was no supporting a prison system where the victim paid for the upkeep of the prisoner in taxes, as well as losing what was stolen.

Someone who found themselves in debt but unable to pay were also sold into service until the debt was paid off. It was a good system. The slave's owner provided food and lodging and he was to be treated as a hired worker.

There were strict laws governing the treatment of slaves, remembering the times and the culture. We cannot put today's standards on yesterdays norms. What was acceptable back then is not acceptable today. Culture dictates what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Some people in African or Asian countries, even today, sell their children or put them to work to support their family. The spoiled brats in the Western world would never come at that.

Your comment is not based on fact but on your uninformed opinion. You are entitled to it of course, but your views are not fact just because you say so.

You obviously need something about God to hate...well go ahead. I don't think he needs your approval to carry out his purpose. He'd like to include you but it seems as if no one can penetrate that hard crust you wear on the outside.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Bible speaks freely of slavery. Something that in this day and age is considered unacceptable....but it was something that was quite acceptable and even beneficial in the times when the Bible was written.

That doesn't excuse it, or make it acceptable. The Bible is clear that it's ok to own slaves, and that slaves are the property of those who bought them. Humans are not property, and just because "that's how they did it then" is not a valid reason to dismiss such an atrocity.

They lived in Sodom probably all their lives and they were still virgins....No gang rape...no rape at all...OK?

It didn't happen, but it is irrefutable that Lot made the offer.

 

[McBell]

Actually, if you understand the concept of integrating each passage in the light of all other texts in the Bible the outcome is quite the opposite of cherry-picking and prevents one from coming up with ideas that are contrary to the entirety of the scriptures.

That is one possibility.
Of course, you can also do the exact same thing and get the Bible to say whatever you want.
Thus the 100,000+ denominations of Christianity.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No, I don't get to prove it, nor can I and it isn't my job to since the scriptures, Peter specifically as noted by you, was already inspired by God to record the needed information in reference to Lot's faith. If that is not enough for you then certainly nothing I say will prove anything.

You CAN prove it to me. You can show from the texts that actually feature Lot that he is righteous. I'll wait.

It's like saying Darth Vader was a really great guy while ignoring all the genocides and such. Characterization does not rely on claims about the character ... it depends on the character's actual portrayal. This is why claims of Jesus' sinlessness doesn't work either, because he commits many. The bible likes deeply flawed characters. It's a theme throughout. To ignore that is to avoid the point about humanity the bible is trying to make (that messed up people can still do great things).

Of course Peter's words were inspired, he was an apostle of Jesus Christ, a leader in the church, and his epistles were included in the canon of biblical scriptures.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,a which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1;19-21

I understand this site has its own messiahs like B'Net did. They claim it, so you must believe them, right?

Actually, if you understand the concept of integrating each passage in the light of all other texts in the Bible the outcome is quite the opposite of cherry-picking and prevents one from coming up with ideas that are contrary to the entirety of the scriptures.

I hope you have a good night.

You integrate only what you wish to. Say that Lot is not righteous and you refuse to believe "the entirety" because you prefer Peter's spin on it.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Why would Lot have moved there in the first place?

Tom

Speculating here, I would imagine the towns demographics changed over time. For whatever reason, Lot was unable to relocate. Perhaps financial. We see modern equivalents in American cities where you see old white WW2 generation senior citizens living in the outskirts of the inner cities where the "ghetto" has slowly encroached into areas that were once safe, clean and prosperous. Because of falling house prices there, rising prices elsewhere and with fixed incomes are unable to sell and move.

I would also add that the talk about the sexual aspect is really missing the entire point of the story.

People with a militant pro-homosexual bias want to whitewash other peoples beliefs to make them conform to them. You're right though, it wasn't the exclusive sin of Sodom nor the main point of the story. No pun intended, it's just a facet that sticks in thier throat.

You seem to forget that they were living in Sodom.....it wasn't young virgin females they were after.... They had no interest in heterosexual sex.

Why would lot offer females to homosexual men? That makes no sense.*

Where does it say the mob that surrounded Lot's house were exclusively homosexual? Yeah I didn't think so. It says right in Jude 1:7


just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.



Biblically that would be including and not limited to; homosexual, bi-sexual, pedophilia and bestiality. That is why Lot thought that offering his daughters was a legitimate potential offer because the mob were not exclusively homosexual and even volunteered the information that they were virgins! The implications of that is that virgins have a smaller vaginal cavity thus providing a more pleasurable sexual experience. Not being a male, I don't expect you to factor that in, but another reason you are out of your element in the assessment.

We also have a second story almost exactly the same, also usingYADA- in which we are told they wanted toKILLhim.


In an earlier verse YHVH uses a form of the word - to mean Judge and punish.


Gen 19:9 tells us the people knew they had come toJUDGEand punish.


It makes far more sense that they wanted the men brought out so they could JUDGE and punish them first.

Once again, the fact that you are not fluent in Hebrew makes your pieced meal translations irrelevant and out of your element. We have had Jews on this forum, fluent in Hebrew, even Liberal ones, state that the translation is written Yada, euphemistically, to have sex with. Even if they did want to judge, they still wanted to punish them via *** rape. The story you quoted, they still raped his concubine to death. You contradicted your own premise.

It makes far more sense that they wanted the men brought out so they could JUDGE and punish them first.

It makes sense if someone has a militant pro-homosexual bias. Do you have a bias? Do you fervently support and accept homosexuals? Do you express strong disdain to those that oppose them? Do you engage in acts that homosexuals do such as sodomy?


I think if you answer yes then that will give us the answer.


That mob had the full intent of raping those angels like what was done to poor ol' Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction, with or without "judging" them. They even told Lot they would do worse to him. No need to judge when they already had a intent. Why did they reject the daughters? Maybe the collective thought of the crowd was the "fresh meat" that wandered in. Who knows, it's fiction.

I don't care what else Lot may have done, offering up his virgin daughters as whores doesn't seem redeemable in my book.


Anybody care to explain/justify this abominable behavior?


.

Obviously not. The one thing that puzzled me about the story was the son-in-laws who were oblivious to the events unfolding.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

People with a militant pro-homosexual bias want to whitewash other peoples beliefs to make them conform to them.

Huh?

The implications of that is that virgins have a smaller vaginal cavity thus providing a more pleasurable sexual experience. Not being a male, I don't expect you to factor that in, but another reason you are out of your element in the assessment.

That's not how vaginas work. Not being a female (or not having much experience with or knowledge of female anatomy), I don't expect you to factor that in, but another reason you are out of your element in the assessment.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

God made us. Our lives come from Him and if He wills it, our deaths. It's His right to give or take away, as He see's fit.

And death isn't a bad thing anyway.

It's been awhile so the name of the thread eludes me but I distinctly remember on another thread you spinning and ignoring scripture to justify your stance on accepting homosexuals. Yet when it comes to everything else, like genocide ect, you're justifying God's actions.

It's like you only think God is morally objective up until the point it becomes politically incorrect to do so.

"God exterminates men, women and children indiscriminately? Phew, I can live with that. For a second there I thought he was singling out homosexuals"

Is really how you come off.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Huh?

That's not how vaginas work. Not being a female (or not having much experience with or knowledge of female anatomy), I don't expect you to factor that in, but another reason you are out of your element in the assessment.

Haha, fair enough. But that's the point though. That's what most guys assume and why Lot conveyed that fact.